you been served
Serves her right for volunteering for something that was obviously doomed and pointless. I am sure I can set up an online identity project if she insists on dropping 30 quid on every doomed if project
Angela Epstein, the Manchester-based columnist and ID cards poster girl, has written a furious lament for the scheme - and she's so angry she's started a Facebook group. "I never wanted to be a poster girl for the ID project," Epstein rages in her latest treatise for the Manchester Evening News. "I never had any kind of …
While I agree with the general sentiments entirely, which I think could be neatly summed up as: Ha-ha!
Nevertheless... "obviously doomed"?
Do you really believe that a majority conservative government would have scrapped them?
'Cos... given who tried to introduce them in the first place, 20-odd years ago... I don't!!
How dare David Laws try not to be ousted as a homosexual because there are so many openly gay politicans in the upper echelons of power and the media wouldn't at all try and undermine him at every opportunity... O wait, that's exactly what they have done.
It isn't theft it's like knowingly buying a cheap knock off piece of kit and being suprised when it doesn't work correctly.
I really couldnt care less what he does in the privacy of his own home, or anyone elses for that matter.
And yes it is shamefull that he feels he has to hide his feeleings. not just from the press and parliament, but from his own familly too.
what I object to is the fact the basterd stole 40 grand of my hard earned, for no good reason.
and what I'm REALLY pissed off about it that it was a lib dem caught with his hand in the till.
Sorry, Naughtyhorse, but you've been drinking the kool-aid: the 40 grand figure is the total paid to his partner, not the portion paid since renting from one's partner became inappropriate. So there is no question that the figure is less than 40K.
And more important: had Laws rented on the open market (as he was 100% entitled to do), he'd have spent more for the accommodation. Which we would have paid.
So Laws got slimed for actually saving us money.
Good dea! Thank you, The Telegraph. Nice work!
"I really couldnt care less what he does in the privacy of his own home, or anyone elses for that matter."
You may not, but a good 30%+ of the British population still views homosexuality as wrong.
"what I object to is the fact the basterd stole 40 grand of my hard earned, for no good reason."
He didn't steal 40 grand from you. That's pretty decrepit thinking.
As to no good reason, he had a pretty good reason, if he declared the man he was renting from as his lover then his career would more or less be over, a rather good reason not to announce it.
How many MPs renting from a hetrosexual lover get away with this? I suspect a fair few and they wont be found out unless they're having an affair because there's no story in it. Nailing the man as homosexual was a double win for the media and did us out of a man who (rarely in modern politics) actually had a firm understanding of his portfolio.
he made claims that were against the rules, that is why h elost his job
and we all know that making claims against the rules is what mp's do when the rest of us steal.
He CHOSE to keep his sexuality secret. AND he CHOSE to enter public life.
and then he chose to stel my money. and for that he deserves to loose his job.
There is no denying that the man broke the rules, but if you look aty what he actually did, it is not really that bad.
The man was entitled to claim for rent, just not from a spouse or partner, a rule which was introduced only a few years ago. Since he was already claiming for rent for a property owned by his lover, he was then put in the situation where he could stop claiming the rent (which correctly, he should have done) or continue. Because he didn't want to be outed, since it would put a serious damper on his career, he didn't stop claiming, since if he had, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the question of why would arise.
As has been noted above, if he had been openly gay, then he would have been entitled to claim other benefits. His mistake was to try to protect his private life from the gutter press.
Do you know what, most people CHOOSE to keep their sexuality secret, although most people's sexuality doesn't attract ire from morons.
And one more thing - he didn't 'stel' anyone's money, he claimed money which it turns out he wasn't entitled to, so he is paying it back. Yes, he deserves to 'loose' his job because he broke the rules, but not for the reasons you give.
*Apologies for the pun on your name, but it just works so WELL...
He made claims that were within the rules but not within what was retrospectively decided to be the spirit of the rules.
Retrospective judgements are all well and good, and what he did was certainly unethical, but he wasn't short of a few quid to start with and here's a thing about people who are successful with money: They play the rules. They follow the letter of the rules and use any loopholes or wriggle space in that to maximise their own benefit.
Now on the one hand I would rather my politicians were ethical and upstanding in all matters. On the other, I would really like to have someone who can recognise loopholes and wriggle space in financial rules to be writing those rules...
> The man was entitled to claim for rent, just not from a spouse or partner, a rule which was introduced only a few years ago. Since he was already claiming for rent for a property owned by his lover, he was then put in the situation where he could stop claiming the rent (which correctly, he should have done) or continue.
Yeah sure there is absolutely nothing wrong with claiming rent to which you are not entitled.
My son is unemployed at the moment and living with me. I'm sure the authorities wouldn't mind if he claimed rent to pay me, after all if he rented a flat he would be entitled to claim more rent than I would charge him. Oh yeah, thats right, the authorities would view that as fraud and prosecute him. It is a pity the MPs dont have to abide by the same rules as us mere mortals.
looking 'aty' what he did...
MP's mis-claiming is stealing
end your internal dialogue, you are wrong.
it's just there is one law for the rest of us schmucks.
and another for our political overlords.
and it fucking stinks.
There is a whole other debate about sexuality, for which I feel a great degree of sympathy for him -although the 30%? who think it's wrong to be gay. (elsewhere in this thread) almost certainly thing being a 'lib dem' is wrong too, so thats not really a defence.
It does seem that this whole gay angle to the story is something that has been rolled out by the spin doctors to try to mitigate the misdeed.
The whole 'repaying' over claimed monies is bollocks too
And I'm not singling him out IMHO (lol) 100's of the theving bastards should be in the dock. I claim expenses as part of my job, and the rule is; if i dont have receipts, or can't otherwise demonstrate that an expense was incurred i don't claim it. I have no problem with that. but i fail to see why anyone else should have a different arrangement. ESPECIALLY when I am footing the bill.
Follow the story and it's pretty clear that he outed himself - and did it to gain sympathy. In other words he thought his sexuality would make people treat him with more sympathy than if he'd been straight. Cynical manipulation by a common thief, but it shows how homosexuality isn't the issue it was 20 years ago.
Like maughtyhorse says, he was a thief. What else does it show when clegg and cameron stand behind this man and call him honourable? They all live on a different planet, and as soon as we realise this, we can start dealing with them properly. Don't beleive a word the shits say. Laws was upset because he got caught stealing our money, no other reason.
There are/were plenty of gay MPs. Kind of ruins the idea that his career would be distroyed by commeing out:
Angela Eagle, Chris Bryant, Chris Smith, David Borrow, Nick Brown to name a few.
It is no longer about how he would be treated, but how he views himself, which is no excuse for brakeing the rules, and not £40k of rule brakeing. I am aware homophobia still exists, and was infact subjected to it myself last Saterday from a taxi driver, but to claime what he has is stupid. Infact I doubt anyone would even have noticed if he did not claim a housing allowence.
The value of fair market rent is nothing to do with it, no more than if someone was claiming rent for a house their husband or wife owned.
> How dare David Laws try not to be ousted as a homosexual because there are so many openly gay politicans in the upper echelons of power...
David Laws did not need to claim rent to keep his sexuality secret. The only reason he has been outed is because he did claim rent that he was not entitled to.
The restriction wasn't that you couldn't demonstrate outside parliament under the previous government - you were perfectly entitled to, but as you say, you had to file the correct paperwork and have ID to hand.
Hopefully the newly branded dictatorship will allow us to once again exercise our democratic right to demonstrate without consent from the police beforehand outside parliament.
You have voluntarily handed over £30 to buy into a scheme which has always been on the cards for cancellation, and you've been exposed to the nation as a retard - if I were you, I'd cut my losses, shut the fuck up, and try and keep your head down unless you also want to be the poster girl for pointless hissy fits. Moron.
And by the way - a Facebook protest group? How old are you, twelve? Grow up.
I agree with your point, but at the moment natural selection would probably somewhat favour the stupid and promiscuous - there's no need for intelligence to survive anymore really (though if you think about it, practicality rather than aptitude for maths is what you'd consider as intelligence in this regard, not that she has either).
And yet back in December she wrote a long article for the Manchester Evening News saying
"I genuinely felt proud and excited when I was finally handed my card. I loved seeing my name, face and the words British citizen on this tiny piece of plastic. That’s who I am, and why shouldn’t anyone know?"
and then followed it up with the classic
"As I’ve said before I understand why people have their reservations, but I personally can’t see what there is to lose if you’re a law abiding citizen with nothing to hide."
and she also drops in the fact that she knows they'll be abandoned if the tories get in.
It's just a shame that they didn't cost more.
Bitching that you lost £30 is fair enough, but bitching that you lost £30 when:
a) you never spent the £30 to begin with, opting instead to photoshop (badly) a specimen card into your hand.
b) you are vocal in your support of ID cards even as you claim you never wanted to be vocal in your support of ID cards
is such monumentally shabby behavior (hounding dead people's relatives notwithstanding) that you ought to be put to work digging ditches with a toothpick until you can offer a sincere apology for what you have done.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019